Any official opposition to an American immigration policy is going to have to deal with the fact that the Vatican City State just promulgated criminal penalties for illegal entrance harsher than anything this country imposes.
Any official opposition to an American immigration policy is going to have to deal with the fact that the Vatican City State just promulgated criminal penalties for illegal entrance harsher than anything this country imposes.
I've heard of a Chinese guy getting a prison sentence in the US approximately equivalent to what the Vatican is imposing for illegal entrance... only he got it for flying a drone with a camera in areas where pictures were forbidden for DOD purposes, and clearly posted as such. So I would really like to hear an official explanation of how the Vatican squares their new law with their statements on American immigration policy.
Who knows? Some of the residents of Trump Tower might well have undocumented live-in nannies or other "help." It's not that uncommon among the well-to-do in NYC.
PM Meloni has her own steady supply of illegal immigrants coming from Africa; I'd like to see a few thousand bused directly into the Vatican. It'd be entertaining to see the HF try to live up to his rhetoric - for once.
From what was said about JD and Ed having violated the law, it sounds more akin to trespassing, not breaking in. 3 years is rather stiff for trespassing.
Perhaps. But there's a bit of an analogy between the right of a person to control the land he owns, and the rights of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs.
I agree with both those points (as does the Church, as best I can see) but I don't see the analogy with US policy. The Church's problem with the new Administration's policy is not over right of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs, but how to humanely respond to people who are legitimate or undetermined refugees, where legally admitted under TPS or have lived here their entire adult lives.
I haven't heard any discussion about what to do with people who have been legally determined to be refugees and admitted. I assume that's because we give them legal residence and move on.
The question of what to do with people who have claimed that status, but without having their claims actually verified yet, seems to be part and parcel to the right of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs, either by ensuring their status is determined before they enter, or by retaining the ability to deport people who are determined to not fit the nation's criteria after entry, in whatever numbers are necessary. Otherwise the nation's "control" is a pretense. Just like control of one's property is a pretense if you have no capability to bar entry to someone or to have them leave.
I haven't heard any discussion of what the criteria for "refugee" should be either, but that is also part of the right of a nation to control entry, since you don't want it defined as a gang member fleeing a rival gang, or a person leaving a nation less wealthy than the most wealthy nation in the world. I really wish there was more discussion on this, as it seems like one of the discussion points where neither side will advocate for ignoring the law or making it unenforceable, or for closing everything off. It's clearly a prudential matter, and therefore the most worthy of ongoing discussion and adjustment.
A lot of people seem to be self-deporting, which is probably the most humane way to do it. Assuming they aren't resorting to the same smugglers that bring people in, because that's not humane. If the Church were to help them, it could become a more comfortable process, and help them get set up better wherever they go.
The criteria for refugee status exists in law. As far as adjudicating their cases quickly, I think three of us Catholics (you, me and Joe Biden) agree with that. We have a backlog of cases due to the lack of immigration judges. The judges, their union, Biden and the Democrats have all called for more judges. Trump just froze hiring, meaning any judge that retires will not be replaced. This is why I don't find any connection to the migration issue with the earlier post.
It's a temporary freeze on hiring, largely to combat the hiring of DEI enforcement groups, since firing federal workers is virtually impossible. It's Democrats who voted down a recent bipartisan bill to expand the number of US judges. Hopefully that bill will be reintroduced and passed now, because the backlog is across the board and not just in immigration.
The Democrats had the House and Presidency, and just shy of half the Senate for the last four years. If they didn't add more immigration judges, I think that's on them, regardless of what they called for. A bill with nothing in it besides a bipartisan schedule for adding a few hundred judges... I'd have assumed I was dreaming if that ever came up.
The criteria for refugee status might not be sufficient. Some simplification of the rules could also speed up the process, which should not typically require a lot of work by judges. Personally, I think work VISAs that tie immigrants to a particular company are a bad idea, and that the quota for immigrants to enter who do not have tons of money, US family, or refugee status is too low - the last time it was increased was under W. Bush. But that's all in existing law, controlled by Congress.
Most of the means of illegal immigration recently has been simply the Executive Branch making it harder to effectively enforce the law. Most of the means of reducing it will be to make it easier to enforce. If the process provides for an easy way to get trespassers removed from your home when you return from your 2 week vacation, then you have fewer trespassers. If the process puts in a 6 month waiting period and requires you to live with the trespasser until you've filed a lot of paperwork with 3 different levels of judges, you'll have a lot of trespassers.
The Vatican City state is a sovereign territory with same rights to police its borders as any other sovereign territory. Gaining access to a building within that sovereign territory is indeed trespassing which is a private property violation. You can two two things with one act. In the same way a someone attempting a border crossing will be crossing into private land (like a ranch) and trespassing as well.
In liberal political theory, State sovereignty is an extension of individual property rights. Just as in individual has the right to decide who is welcome on their property and who is not, a State, in accordance with the social contract it has with its individual citizens has the right to control the flow of people in and out of a sovereign territory to protect both the rights of the current citizens and ensure the sustainability of the stateтАЩs capacity to provide its half of the social contract it has entered into with its citizens. This is the fundamental principle organsing our modern state system, which the Vatican and Holy See participate in.
It is different to the Catholic social understanding of property, rights and sovereignty which is a whole other thing.
This is a bad argument. There is no comparison between a micronation with a tiny GDP, no infrastructure to handle immigration, and a permanent population no larger than a small town, and the most wealthy nation in human history with the 4th largest land area, infrastructure and wealth to comfortably handle tens of millions of migrants, and a population that can assist and support tens of millions of migrants.
I agree that immigration to the Vatican vs the US is not an apt comparison. However your picture seems overly optimistic. The "4th largest land area" isn't relevant, as immigrants are not homesteading in the plains but crowding into places like Chicago and NYC, and those municipalities say they are unable to cope.
I would agree that the differences between the two countries lead to a difference in the ability to take in immigrants. And I would favor a generous legal immigration limit for the United States. The question is: what to do with people who immigrate or enter illegally? My point is that the Vatican has recently changed its policy to make it much harsher toward illegal entrants, presumably because the situation has changed and security issues are more serious. If the Vatican reserves the right to be more harsh with illegal immigrants than it has been, and than the United States currently is, it is in a poor position to criticize the United States for making policy toward illegal immigrants stricter than it has been in the past. I am not in favor of deporting all illegal immigrants, particularly children and those who have proven their ability to be a constructive members of society for a long time, nor do I think that the Trump administration will try to do so. However, the Vatican should recognize that many American reasonably believe that the changing situation in which illegal immigration has increased justifies a greater effort to deport illegal immigrants than has been employed in the past. And it should avoid sweeping condemnations of approaches towards a difficult situation, given that it has adopted a stricter approach itself.
Any official opposition to an American immigration policy is going to have to deal with the fact that the Vatican City State just promulgated criminal penalties for illegal entrance harsher than anything this country imposes.
I've heard of a Chinese guy getting a prison sentence in the US approximately equivalent to what the Vatican is imposing for illegal entrance... only he got it for flying a drone with a camera in areas where pictures were forbidden for DOD purposes, and clearly posted as such. So I would really like to hear an official explanation of how the Vatican squares their new law with their statements on American immigration policy.
The Vatican policy is more akin to breaking into private property than migration. No one living in the Holy See for decades is being deported.
No one living within the confines of the Citt├а del Vaticano тАЬfor decadesтАЭ is there without express permission
Exactly. Nor is anyone living in the Trump Tower like that. Not comparable with a migrants policy.
Who knows? Some of the residents of Trump Tower might well have undocumented live-in nannies or other "help." It's not that uncommon among the well-to-do in NYC.
Then they are present with the consent of the leasehold
PM Meloni has her own steady supply of illegal immigrants coming from Africa; I'd like to see a few thousand bused directly into the Vatican. It'd be entertaining to see the HF try to live up to his rhetoric - for once.
From what was said about JD and Ed having violated the law, it sounds more akin to trespassing, not breaking in. 3 years is rather stiff for trespassing.
Maybe. Still on issues of property not migration.
Perhaps. But there's a bit of an analogy between the right of a person to control the land he owns, and the rights of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs.
I agree with both those points (as does the Church, as best I can see) but I don't see the analogy with US policy. The Church's problem with the new Administration's policy is not over right of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs, but how to humanely respond to people who are legitimate or undetermined refugees, where legally admitted under TPS or have lived here their entire adult lives.
I haven't heard any discussion about what to do with people who have been legally determined to be refugees and admitted. I assume that's because we give them legal residence and move on.
The question of what to do with people who have claimed that status, but without having their claims actually verified yet, seems to be part and parcel to the right of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs, either by ensuring their status is determined before they enter, or by retaining the ability to deport people who are determined to not fit the nation's criteria after entry, in whatever numbers are necessary. Otherwise the nation's "control" is a pretense. Just like control of one's property is a pretense if you have no capability to bar entry to someone or to have them leave.
I haven't heard any discussion of what the criteria for "refugee" should be either, but that is also part of the right of a nation to control entry, since you don't want it defined as a gang member fleeing a rival gang, or a person leaving a nation less wealthy than the most wealthy nation in the world. I really wish there was more discussion on this, as it seems like one of the discussion points where neither side will advocate for ignoring the law or making it unenforceable, or for closing everything off. It's clearly a prudential matter, and therefore the most worthy of ongoing discussion and adjustment.
A lot of people seem to be self-deporting, which is probably the most humane way to do it. Assuming they aren't resorting to the same smugglers that bring people in, because that's not humane. If the Church were to help them, it could become a more comfortable process, and help them get set up better wherever they go.
The criteria for refugee status exists in law. As far as adjudicating their cases quickly, I think three of us Catholics (you, me and Joe Biden) agree with that. We have a backlog of cases due to the lack of immigration judges. The judges, their union, Biden and the Democrats have all called for more judges. Trump just froze hiring, meaning any judge that retires will not be replaced. This is why I don't find any connection to the migration issue with the earlier post.
It's a temporary freeze on hiring, largely to combat the hiring of DEI enforcement groups, since firing federal workers is virtually impossible. It's Democrats who voted down a recent bipartisan bill to expand the number of US judges. Hopefully that bill will be reintroduced and passed now, because the backlog is across the board and not just in immigration.
The Democrats had the House and Presidency, and just shy of half the Senate for the last four years. If they didn't add more immigration judges, I think that's on them, regardless of what they called for. A bill with nothing in it besides a bipartisan schedule for adding a few hundred judges... I'd have assumed I was dreaming if that ever came up.
The criteria for refugee status might not be sufficient. Some simplification of the rules could also speed up the process, which should not typically require a lot of work by judges. Personally, I think work VISAs that tie immigrants to a particular company are a bad idea, and that the quota for immigrants to enter who do not have tons of money, US family, or refugee status is too low - the last time it was increased was under W. Bush. But that's all in existing law, controlled by Congress.
Most of the means of illegal immigration recently has been simply the Executive Branch making it harder to effectively enforce the law. Most of the means of reducing it will be to make it easier to enforce. If the process provides for an easy way to get trespassers removed from your home when you return from your 2 week vacation, then you have fewer trespassers. If the process puts in a 6 month waiting period and requires you to live with the trespasser until you've filed a lot of paperwork with 3 different levels of judges, you'll have a lot of trespassers.
Your confusing federal judges with immigration ALJs and confused as to who controlled the House last term.
The Vatican City state is a sovereign territory with same rights to police its borders as any other sovereign territory. Gaining access to a building within that sovereign territory is indeed trespassing which is a private property violation. You can two two things with one act. In the same way a someone attempting a border crossing will be crossing into private land (like a ranch) and trespassing as well.
Ok. But it is strained to connect this to any migration policy.
In liberal political theory, State sovereignty is an extension of individual property rights. Just as in individual has the right to decide who is welcome on their property and who is not, a State, in accordance with the social contract it has with its individual citizens has the right to control the flow of people in and out of a sovereign territory to protect both the rights of the current citizens and ensure the sustainability of the stateтАЩs capacity to provide its half of the social contract it has entered into with its citizens. This is the fundamental principle organsing our modern state system, which the Vatican and Holy See participate in.
It is different to the Catholic social understanding of property, rights and sovereignty which is a whole other thing.
This is a bad argument. There is no comparison between a micronation with a tiny GDP, no infrastructure to handle immigration, and a permanent population no larger than a small town, and the most wealthy nation in human history with the 4th largest land area, infrastructure and wealth to comfortably handle tens of millions of migrants, and a population that can assist and support tens of millions of migrants.
There sure is comms-wise.
Comms-wise?
Are they $37 trillion in debt? We are actually a fairly poor country even though we borrow and donate massive amounts of money.
I agree that immigration to the Vatican vs the US is not an apt comparison. However your picture seems overly optimistic. The "4th largest land area" isn't relevant, as immigrants are not homesteading in the plains but crowding into places like Chicago and NYC, and those municipalities say they are unable to cope.
would that all of us could homestead on state and municipality-owned farm and urban land. would be a just addition to our economy.
I would agree that the differences between the two countries lead to a difference in the ability to take in immigrants. And I would favor a generous legal immigration limit for the United States. The question is: what to do with people who immigrate or enter illegally? My point is that the Vatican has recently changed its policy to make it much harsher toward illegal entrants, presumably because the situation has changed and security issues are more serious. If the Vatican reserves the right to be more harsh with illegal immigrants than it has been, and than the United States currently is, it is in a poor position to criticize the United States for making policy toward illegal immigrants stricter than it has been in the past. I am not in favor of deporting all illegal immigrants, particularly children and those who have proven their ability to be a constructive members of society for a long time, nor do I think that the Trump administration will try to do so. However, the Vatican should recognize that many American reasonably believe that the changing situation in which illegal immigration has increased justifies a greater effort to deport illegal immigrants than has been employed in the past. And it should avoid sweeping condemnations of approaches towards a difficult situation, given that it has adopted a stricter approach itself.
This is again about talking out of both side of the mouth...this form of communication defines the Church these days.